LET me ask my readers a question, which will help light the path of my argumentation:

Can you truthfully and honestly look into every individual's eyes, knowing some are elect and others are not, and tell them, "If you rest and trust in Christ, today, you will be saved"?  Is this a true statement to all people, even to those who are not predestined unto glorification?  How is this true?  Can any of my readers justify the truth of this statement?  One might look to Matthew 11:28, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest."  Here Christ tells all who are weary and heavy-laden (every man, woman, and child) if they come to him, he will necessarily give them rest.  Surely this is true of all to whom Christ was speaking, which were both elect and non-elect persons.  Someone, whether elect or non-elect, may ask, "What must I do to be saved?"  And aren't we to reply truthfully and honestly to all people (like the Philippian Jailer), regardless of their election or not, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household"?  It seems as if Scripture commands the declarers of God's word to speak boldly, truthfully, and honestly on behalf of the Triune God and proclaim to all, whether reprobate or elect, that if they only believe, they too will have the benefit of Christ's person and work applied to them that they might be saved.  It is at this juncture the rubber meets the road, so to speak.  Here, I believe the modern Calvinist will confound himself in his attempts to reconcile the exclusion of the reprobate from the life and death of Christ and the truthfulness of the promise of salvation to all if they only repent and believe.

So, how do you answer my original question: Can you truthfully and honestly look into every individual's eyes, knowing some are elect and others are not, and tell them, "If you rest and trust in Christ, today, you will be saved"?  Those who answer, "Yes," but still believe Jesus Christ did not live and die for all of mankind (reprobate and elect alike) must now ask how such a statement is true in an actualized world in which Christ did not live and die for all mankind, regardless of election or reprobation?  This is the justification I am demanding.  How can one reconcile the metaphysical possibility of salvation unto the non-elect in this actual world if the provision for such salvation in this actual world was not made in the person and work of Christ?  [And to be clear, this is not a mere "provisional" argumentation, which one might find critiqued by men such as Roger Nicole.]  In other words, in order for the statement "if you believe you will be saved" to be true to whomever it is stated, then it is metaphysically possible for those whom God has not elected.  If if it is metaphysically possible for the non-elect to believe and be saved in this actual world (this actual world is the world in which we live and the statement is true, for the statement may not be true in another metaphysically possible world which exists in God's natural knowledge), then for the metaphysical possibility to exist, the provision to fulfill the metaphysical possibility must exist and be real in this possible world.  Let me try and explain this a little more thoroughly and clearly.

Assuming we agree with the teaching/understanding of Christian doctrine regarding the natural and free knowledge of God (and what in there is contained), then we all posit it was metaphysically possible for God to create any other possible world he knew.  In other words, we grant metaphysical possibilities.  But what IS a metaphysical possibility, and what constitutes the existence and parameters of what it is to be a metaphysical possibility?  What is a metaphysical possibility?  A metaphysical possibility is that which would necessarily happen in this actual world (all things being equal) if this actual world was the metaphysically possible world in which the metaphysical possibility of this actual world were logically possible.

The metaphysical possibility is the non-elect having the work of Christ applied *IF* they repent and believe.  This actual world is governed and defined by the principles of total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistible grace.  Because of that, we know a man cannot rest and trust in Christ in this actual world apart from being elected by the Father and effectually called and regenerated  by the Holy Spirit.  In other words, it is only logically possible for the elect to rest and trust in Christ in order that Christ's person and work might be applied to them when they necessarily believe.  Let us say, for the sake of the argument, we receive infallible, irrefutable divine revelation regarding the election (or lack thereof) of two people, Suzie and Tommy.  It is revealed Suzie is non-elect and Tommy is elect.  Therefore, in this actual world (which is strictly defined by the election of Tom and non-election of Suzie, as well as all other factors and characteristics) Tommy will necessarily repent and believe, while Suzie will never repent and believe.  There is no other logical possibility for any other outcome.  The outcome is necessary to the existence of this actual world, though the outcome is not necessary to every possible world.  In fact, it is not necessary to the metaphysically possible world in which Suzie was elected and rested and trusted in the same Jesus Christ who died for the same people.  Remember, in order for the answer to my original question to be "yes," the statement "believe and you will be saved" is true if and only if Christ's provision was genuinely applicable to him in all the current circumstances if and only if he believed!  So, nothing about the work of Christ, or the number of people on whose behalf it was performed, or the individual persons on whose behalf Christ died, needs to change.  We are stating the truth factor assuming what is true about the atonement in this actual world, which must also be true about the atonement in the metaphysically possible world in which Suzie repents, believes, and is saved.

Therefore, one can only answer "Yes" to my question if and only if one affirms Christ died for all mankind, reprobate and elect alike.  Why?  Because it is true if and only if the work of Christ in this actual world is possibly effectual and applicable to all mankind, elect or non-elect.  How can the work of Christ in this actual world be possibly effectual and applicable to all men, women, and children in recorded history if He did not, as the Last Adam, represent all mankind in his life, death, burial, and resurrection?  We'll look more closely at this issue in the third installment, and hopefully look at the fifth chapter of Romans before reconciling and justifying such notions with tri-covenantal theology.